Mens Rights Thread

On at least two occasions I can remember, we were talked to and shown videos about checking our testicles for lumps in school. I have also done Movember, which is hugely popular, on two occasions.

We had zero sex ed. The girls in the school next door had some based on menstruation, but not accidental pregnancies. I think they also had an abstinence talk...

I think sex and health ed is extremely varied by school, and I feel that awareness of prostate and testicular cancer has really grown over the last few years with campaigns like Movember.

Re: suicide, I recall seeing campaigns aimed at prompting young men to talk about their problems in the not too distant past. I recall some discussion of the issue of male suicide while in school also.

So I don't really understand saying that issues like these are not discussed or that sex ed is geared towards girls etc.

The age of consent/statutory rape laws are indeed fucked, no disagreement there.

A study just out. Given the dramatic rises in unemployment in Ireland, this could be particularly relevant.

Full text is available to anybody for free at: http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5142

Research: Suicides associated with the 2008-10 economic recession
in England: time trend analysis

BMJ 2012;345 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5142 (Published 14 August 2012)

[..]

Results Between 2008 and 2010, we found 846 (95% confidence interval 818 to
877) more suicides among men than would have been expected based on historical
trends, and 155 (121 to 189) more suicides among women. Historically, short term
yearly fluctuations in unemployment have been associated with annual changes in
suicides among men but not among women. We estimated that each 10% increase in
the number of unemployed men was significantly associated with a 1.4% (0.5% to
2.3%) increase in male suicides. These findings suggest that about two fifths of
the recent increase in suicides among men (increase of 329 suicides, 126 to 532)
during the 2008-10 recession can be attributed to rising unemployment.

Conclusion The study provides evidence linking the recent increase in
suicides in England with the financial crisis that began in 2008. English
regions with the largest rises in unemployment have had the largest increases in
suicides, particularly among men.

yawha wrote: »

So I don't really understand saying that issues like these are not discussed or that sex ed is geared towards girls etc.

You admitted yourself that where it came to sex ed the girls got more than you and I presume your school days were more recent than mine (where we at best learned the basic scientific facts surrounding reproduction). Did you get educated on the legal implications of under-age sex, if you're a boy? Or the question of your rights if you did get a girl pregnant?

Even programmes such as HPV inoculation in Ireland are only targeting girls in schools.

After school, how well disseminated is the information regarding the obligations of long term cohabitation? Or the aforementioned unplanned pregnancies? Is there a male equivalent of the state funded 'Positive Options' site, to advise specifically men, as it specifically advises women?

The point I'm making is that most men are pretty oblivious to many of these issues unless it happens to them or close to home. But that does not mean they didn't exist before (falling male academic performance in schools alone would indicate otherwise). There's very little discussion, let alone support, and as we have even seen here, even having the temerity to bring up these issues is often met with hostility.

The Corinthian wrote: »

After school, how well disseminated is the information regarding the obligations of long term cohabitation? Or the aforementioned unplanned pregnancies? Is there a male equivalent of the state funded 'Positive Options' site, to advise specifically men, as it specifically advises women?

I remember when the (State) Crisis Pregnancy Agency/similar was being set up, the woman running it, Olive Braiden, dismissed (perhaps mocked might be a better word?) the idea that men/fathers would be represented at all in it.

Morag

Positive options is a referral service for both men and women who find themselves in a crises pregnancy situation and want information/counselling.

Sharrow wrote: »

Positive options is a referral service for both men and women who find themselves in a crises pregnancy situation and want information/counselling.

That may be so, but when they were drawing up what would be involved, Olive Braiden, the person charged by the government to head the project, very publicly and brazenly scoffed at the idea that men would be consulted.

Indeed, what you have written shows that men were going to be using the service and so excluding them from the process was not good.

I don't know your age. This was back around 2001 I imagine so some people may have been too young to be media watchers at the time.

Sharrow wrote: »

Positive options is a referral service for both men and women who find themselves in a crises pregnancy situation and want information/counselling.

Sticking a token page with a few links and a video (where there are no men speaking) hardly makes is a "service for both men and women". Look at their logo FFS!

As for pregnancy counselling in Ireland, there's another disaster where it comes to any male emphasis.

Piliger

yawha wrote: »

So I don't really understand saying that issues like these are not discussed or that sex ed is geared towards girls etc.

The age of consent/statutory rape laws are indeed fucked, no disagreement there.

I don't agree with this assessment. I just spoke with my 20yo son and he was in three 2ndry schools - none of them mentioned a word about any health issues for boys at all, ever. But they had special classes for the girls (mixed schools) to talk about breast cancer, pregnancy, miscarriage and condoms. NONE for the boys.

We are living through a period where boys/men are utterly dismissed by a society dominated by a feminist driven, politically correct system, and it's open season on misandrous treatment.

Morag

If you have any links to info iptba I will be happy to read them.

I have refereed men to crises pregnancy counselling and post abortion counselling and they did get help and information.

The crises pregnancy agency developed sex ed for both boys and girls in a range of programs for different ages. Unfortunately there is no dept of educ mandated sex ed and it gets left to schools and those which are patron by the catholic church refuse to use that programs.

http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/publication/sex-education-resources/

Yes there is a lot more work which needs to be done when it comes to sexual health education in this country.

Sharrow wrote: »

If you have any links to info iptba I will be happy to read them.

A quick search brings up lots of references to her and the Crisis Pregnancy Agency so I'm not going to look at every link. These days I save things like this that might be of interest but in the past I didn't. Unfortunately the Irish Times archive, which is likely the place (or one of the places), I saw her make the comments isn't free.

But I remember being suspicious of her, given her Dublin Rape Crisis past (and possibly other similar connections), when she stood for election as an MEP, and feeling my suspicions were vindicated (I'd wondered was she a biased/hardline feminist) by the comments. Also, I felt a man could not have gotten away with publicly dismissively excluding women from a similar process.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You admitted yourself that where it came to sex ed the girls got more than you and I presume your school days were more recent than mine

Are you saying I was discriminated against because I was not given education on menstruation and an abstinence talk?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even programmes such as HPV inoculation in Ireland are only targeting girls in schools.

What vaccines for illnesses equivalent in prevalence and seriousness to cervical cancer are men not getting that they should?

Piliger wrote: »

I don't agree with this assessment. I just spoke with my 20yo son and he was in three 2ndry schools - none of them mentioned a word about any health issues for boys at all, ever. But they had special classes for the girls (mixed schools) to talk about breast cancer, pregnancy, miscarriage and condoms. NONE for the boys.

And I had a friend in a co-ed secondary school who received excellent sex ed.

Point is, it's not state mandated and it varies hugely from school to school. I agree that there's a huge problem with that, but I can't accept that there's a gender issue.

yawha wrote: »

Are you saying I was discriminated against because I was not given education on menstruation and an abstinence talk?

No, that is not what I've said.

What vaccines for illnesses equivalent in prevalence and seriousness to cervical cancer are men not getting that they should?

Penile and anal cancer, perchance? HPV increases the incidence of both in men, just as with cervical cancer in women.

And I had a friend in a co-ed secondary school who received excellent sex ed.

Well if we're relying on anecdotal evidence here, then your friend appears to be in a minority, given the responses.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, that is not what I've said.

What did you mean then? The girls in the school next to mine got a class/talk or two on menstruation and abstinence and we didn't. You made a point of mentioning this as if it was some way indicative of sex ed being geared to girls

The Corinthian wrote: »

Penile and anal cancer, perchance? HPV increases the incidence of both in men, just as with cervical cancer in women.

They're both much less prevalent cancers...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well if we're relying on anecdotal evidence here, then your friend appears to be in a minority, given the responses.

You appear to not have read the last line of my post.

yawha wrote: »

What did you mean then? The girls in the school next to mine got a class/talk or two on menstruation and abstinence and we didn't. You made a point of mentioning this as if it was some way indicative of sex ed being geared to girls

Of course it is - girls get some education on the subject (relating to girls) and the boys get none (relating to boys). How much more indicative do you want?

They're both much less prevalent cancers...

You're taking the piss now. So we've established that HPV is an STI that affects both genders. And that it increases the chance of cancer in both. So on the basis of that chance being higher in one gender, the other gender gets no vaccination whatsoever.

Is male life so devalued that it deserves zero resources? And I mean zero.

You appear to not have read the last line of my post.

I did. Whether sex education is screwed up in general or not in Ireland, does not change the fact that it is still more so for boys than girls.

Re: HPV, vaccines cost the state money. If the risk factor is high enough in one gender to warrant a state funded vaccination, but not in the other, I don't see why both genders should have to get it.

I got MMR and meningitis vaccines in school, the risk from the illnesses these vaccines prevent is considered similar between genders and thus both are vaccinated.

What do you mean by zero resources?

Re: sex ed, why do you think it's more screwed up for boys? In my case, I consider not having to endure an abstinence talk a positive. In general, it seems to be very varied across the board. You appear to be attempting to weigh up various anecdotes and construe your conclusions as discrimination.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did. Whether sex education is screwed up in general or not in Ireland, does not change the fact that it is still more so for boys than girls.

Good post. 100% right.

jackofalltrades

yawha wrote: »

Re: HPV, vaccines cost the state money. If the risk factor is high enough in one gender to warrant a state funded vaccination, but not in the other, I don't see why both genders should have to get it.

The risk factor is high enough for both genders. In the US the CDC has recommended that all male aged 11-12 be vaccinated against it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-03/oral-sex-may-cause-virus-linked-throat-cancer-in-men-study.html

By 2020, the virus-linked throat tumors -- which mostly affected men -- will become more common than HPV-caused cervical cancer, the report found.

yawha wrote: »

Re: HPV, vaccines cost the state money. If the risk factor is high enough in one gender to warrant a state funded vaccination, but not in the other, I don't see why both genders should have to get it.

If you want to talk cost benefit analysis, then it actually should be boys and not girls who are inoculated. After all, if you're looking to curb HPV transmission, inoculating only one gender will only affect heterosexual transmission. Homosexual transmission is not and if you want to affect that you are far better off inoculating boys, not girls, as male homosexual (gay) sex is far more likely to transmit HPV than female homosexual (lesbian) sex.

So even from a practical or cost perspective, your argument falls down.

What do you mean by zero resources?

What state resources are being put into HPV prevention in boys? Zero.

There, that wasn't complicated, was it?

Re: sex ed, why do you think it's more screwed up for boys? In my case, I consider not having to endure an abstinence talk a positive. In general, it seems to be very varied across the board. You appear to be attempting to weigh up various anecdotes and construe your conclusions as discrimination.

Cherry picking abstinence talks as the only sex education girls get is more than a little bit disingenuous, especially as even you have admitted that they will get more than this.

Certainly all either of us are using are anecdotes, so it's hardly conclusive, but in pretty much all anecdotes given by you or anyone else, significantly more emphasis and resources were placed in sex education for girls.

And when one group gets significantly more emphasis and resources than the other, what might one conclude?

Pawwed Rig

I just found this groups website

http://www.turnofftheredlight.ie/about/

They are campaigning for the purchasers of prostitution to be prosecuted rather than the prostitutes themselves. Now don't get me wrong, I realise that there are a portion of girls being forced into prostitution against their wishes and believe it should be dealt with but is criminalising the user the solution which is in effect saying it is ok for a woman to sell sex but not ok for a man to buy it.

To give an analogy of drug use. In Ireland dealers are dealt with much more harshly than the common user. Now some dealers could be called victims too but we have no sympathy for them. But if the same logic were applied we would be saying drug dealing is ok, we should eliminate the demand.

Is it another case of because it is a woman we will criminalise the man?

Ash.J.Williams

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I just found this groups website

http://www.turnofftheredlight.ie/about/

They are campaigning for the purchasers of prostitution to be prosecuted rather than the prostitutes themselves. Now don't get me wrong, I realise that there are a portion of girls being forced into prostitution against their wishes and believe it should be dealt with but is criminalising the user the solution which is in effect saying it is ok for a woman to sell sex but not ok for a man to buy it.

To give an analogy of drug use. In Ireland dealers are dealt with much more harshly than the common user. Now some dealers could be called victims too but we have no sympathy for them. But if the same logic were applied we would be saying drug dealing is ok, we should eliminate the demand.

Is it another case of because it is a woman we will criminalise the man?

Interesting point, would criminalizing petty narcotic purchasers have an effect? I think it would. I remember in college the cops used to park near dealers gaffs and bust students all day and night and put them through the courts.

No, because they are pro criminalizing women who use male prostitutes also.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Interesting point, would criminalizing petty narcotic purchasers have an effect? I think it would. I remember in college the cops used to park near dealers gaffs and bust students all day and night and put them through the courts.

But that is only part of what is being proposed with prostitution. Most people wouldn't accept a policy of only punishing the people buying drugs, while treating people who sell the drugs as victims.

Pawwed Rig

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Interesting point, would criminalizing petty narcotic purchasers have an effect? I think it would. I remember in college the cops used to park near dealers gaffs and bust students all day and night and put them through the courts.

That is true but the analogy would be criminalise the petty users and let the dealers off scott free.

Oh come on yawha. What percentage is that? Is it even 1%? It is an issue that will predominantly affect men.

iptba - snap, beat me to it...just:)

So you think there'd be no opposition like this if women paid for sex with male prostitutes more?

Anyway, are we in all honesty trying to say that any movement against men's right to buy sex as they please is some kind of gross injustice?

I think that in an idealistic sense, I agree with legalizing prostitution, but it's so incredibly low down my list of priorities as to what I deem important.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Is it another case of because it is a woman we will criminalise the man?

I think it is. Some people are very quick to decide some women are victims. Even when women commit crimes including violent crimes, some people can be quick to accept "excuses" or reasoning that they would be less willing to accept from men, who are held as more responsible for their actions and seen less as "victims of circumstance". We have seen the push for prison not to be seen as suitable a punishment for most female offenders; it's one thing to argue that certain crimes shouldn't get custodial sentences, but that was argued on the basis of gender. The effect of this being accepted would be tougher sentences for men than women (and already the conditions for women in prison are better for men).

The purchaser (generally men) have already been penalised by paying, while the seller (often, but not always, women because of gay sex) gain this money. I think at the least punishment should be equal.

If this law was mostly going to criminalise women, and lessen penalties for men, I don't think we would see women's groups pushing for it.

Pawwed Rig

yawha wrote: »

So you think there'd be no opposition like this if women paid for sex with male prostitutes more?

But they don't so I am not sure of your point here

yawha wrote: »

Anyway, are we in all honesty trying to say that any movement against men's right to buy sex as they please is some kind of gross injustice?

I think that in an idealistic sense, I agree with legalizing prostitution, but it's so incredibly low down my list of priorities as to what I deem important.

It is an injustice when it is aimed soley at men. In effect an 18 year old who uses a prostitute could get a criminal record for the rest of his life. Will they also be listed as sex offenders. Never mind the fact that they will soon be liable for statutory rape charges if they meet a girl in a night club who has lied about her age, as the honest mistake defence is being removed.
I would have thought the legalisation and regulation would have been the smart way to go to clean up the prictice a bit but in a company that fairly recently introduced laws against blasphemy that is unlikely to happen.

I am not sure I buy that they are victims. I am not saying that some women are not forced into it by others but I don't believe many who are there because of personal circumstances are victims as such.

If an 18 year old breaks the law, they break the law and should get a criminal record.

I don't believe all women are victims, but based on anything I've heard or read about the industry, it is incredibly dubious. The idea that prostitutes are largely confident, intelligent, astute women who cleverly make money by selling their bodies without any issues is an unsubstantiated myth. IMO if you're selling your body, chances are you've hit absolute rock bottom.

If you read the site it says that in the UK the law only penalizes men who buy sex from prostitutes controlled by pimps. This seems reasonable.

Woodward

yawha wrote: »

If an 18 year old breaks the law, they break the law and should get a criminal record.

I don't believe all women are victims, but based on anything I've heard or read about the industry, it is incredibly dubious. The idea that prostitutes are largely confident, intelligent, astute women who cleverly make money by selling their bodies without any issues is an unsubstantiated myth. IMO if you're selling your body, chances are you've hit absolute rock bottom.

If you read the site it says that in the UK the law only penalizes men who buy sex from prostitutes controlled by pimps. This seems reasonable.

Many women who choose to go into prostitution seek out pimps for protection though. Just because she has a pimp doesnt mean she was coerced into it

"Belle du jour" http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.ie/ is a relatively well-known UK sex worker who did it because it was well paid work. Her latest blog post is, "Why Scotland should not make sex work illegal": http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.ie/2012_06_01_archive.html#7744544396521371435